Sierra Leone Telegraph: 28 April 2022:
In a first step towards engaging parliament on whether proposed reforms to customary land legislation in Sierra Leone will genuinely stimulate responsible investment in the country, businesses and private sector stakeholders convened a roundtable discussion in Freetown on 12 April 2022.
Nearly all the land suitable for large-scale commercial agriculture in Sierra Leone is in the districts and managed under customary law, which consists of communal ownership by ancestral landholding families and individual rights of occupation allocated by Paramount Chiefs and other traditional rulers.
Two draft Bills – the National Land Commission Act, 2021 and the Customary Land Rights Act, 2021 – which are currently in parliament, represent a major shake-up of the system.
The roundtable discussion was facilitated by Invest Salone – the UK government-funded private sector development initiative, and attended by Christopher Forster, the President of the Sierra Leone Chamber of Commerce, Agriculture and Industry (SLCCIA) and members of the Commercial Agricultural Producers and Processors Association (CAPPA) including Miro Forestry and Timber Products, Socfin, Sierra Tropical SL and Goldtree. Also in attendance were Donald Smart – CEO of Mountain Lion Agriculture, Andrew Keili – Mining and Environmental Policy Analyst, Ammar Kamara – Country Director, Empower Africa and representatives from law firm – Macauley, Bangura and Co.
The first part of the discussion raised serious concerns about clauses in the draft Customary Land Rights Act, limiting lease agreements to an initial maximum of 5000 hectares, and for a period not exceeding 21 years for non-citizens. Philip Tonks, General Manager, Socfin said that the consequence of these clauses would be no more investment in rubber, forestry, palm oil or other plantation crops in Sierra Leone: “Tree crops such as forestry, palm, rubber, citrus and other plantation crops enter their prime production after 20 years. This means that agribusinesses will be renegotiating their leases when their crops are in their prime. Socfin has been here for 11 years, and we are only now starting to get a return on our investment.”
Overlap with existing legislation was also an issue. Andrew Keili highlighted duplication between the draft bills and existing agencies and policies such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and environmental protection legislation, the Mines and Minerals Act and the Local Content Act, which could lead to confusion. One example is provision for grievance mechanisms which are already provided for in existing legislation. Keili also pointed out that communities may lack the technical capacity to operationalise the roles and functions devolved to them in the new Acts.
Participants also queried clause 38 of the draft Act, which states that government agencies may set minimum rates for leasing of land for specific purposes and did not include provision for investors to take out independent valuations. Philip Tonks, Socfin asked: “How will a blanket rate be determined? Land value depends on location, resources and facilities – such as proximity to water, access to infrastructure and soil type.”
Other concerns raised included:
• Broad and ambiguous definitions which would sow confusion e.g., ‘sensitive’, ‘fair’, ‘ecologically sensitive’.
• The requirement for the written informed consent of every male and female adult member of the family or community prior to purchasing family land, rather than by a defined majority.
• The requirement for rent to be paid into community or family bank accounts, where some families may prefer alternative payment methods.
• A grievance redress system with no provision for investors to place a grievance.
• No mention of the rights of land-users.
• Community access to/use of leased land with no recourse for the investor if damage is caused.
• No recognition of international sustainability standards.
• The requirement for an investor to have been supporting an out-grower scheme within its area of operation to acquire land exceeding 5000 hectares, when not all agricultural business models use such schemes.
• The requirement to provide internal sensitive and confidential business information to communities, which is not international standard practice.
• The requirement for investors to declare projected profits to communities as part of negotiations, which could lead to unrealistic expectations, given that projected profits may not materialise.
Suggestions for the proposed National Land Commission included:
• Ensuring that the Commission is functional before the Customary Land Rights Act is introduced.
• An interim arrangement to support capacity building in the proposed Land Commission.
• A place on the board of directors for private sector representation through business membership organisations.
Lawyer Centus Macauley cautioned that the customary land tenure system is a nuanced and complex area with no quick fix. “Parliament should be alert to the possibility of trying to legislate for too many eventualities and create confusion instead of clarity. We currently have a flawed but workable system. Investors prefer stability. We do not want this new bill to have the opposite of its intended effect.”
Following the discussions, the roundtable agreed to take their queries to parliament, with submissions from both SLCCIA and CAPPA.
Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie concluded the meeting by saying: “Invest Salone has facilitated discussions between civil society organisations and some private sector actors as well as this session dedicated to agricultural land investors in the private sector. Government of Sierra Leone officials have championed this process. We have also heard Paramount Chiefs’ concerns from news reports. While there are undoubted differences and concerns, they are dwarfed by the common ground upon which we all stand. We need to give the process the time for dialogue, with all parties sitting round the same table to understand each other’s’ perspectives, fears and legitimate misgivings.”
Land issues are very sensitive in our country, not only in Freetown but most importantly in the provinces. There is a belief that our colonial masters (British) introduced the Land Tenure system in order to prevent the then wealthy creole merchants from taking advantage of the people in the inter land communities. Most of the creole merchants used to purchase cash crops but never involved in the cultivation process which was done by the local farmers.
The Land Tenure system benefited the Chiefs and their communities based on the fact that it helped eradicate hunger and minimize poverty and most used their income to educate their kids.
It will really take some time for some of our Paramount Chiefs and their communities to have total mindset change in giving up their lands to large scale foreign investors, which justifies the “fears and legitimate misgivings” and ongoing “cautious dialogue”between these institutions. Even most parliamentarians are very cautious about passing laws which can be a backlash against them in their chiefdoms and constituencies.
Finally, I believe that most of our farmers still believe in their traditional method of community and subsistence farming which is still affecting our Gross Domestic Products. But the major challenge is the shrinking labor force ( Youths) in the villages who are now miners, petty traders and bikers. Unfortunately, most have migrated to Freetown where hunger is prevalent.